With one of the closest presidential elections in history being decided today, we are afforded an opportunity to reflect on the great American phenomenon of democracy. Late today, roughly one half of America will be subjugated to the will of the other half. As we celebrate or commiserate over the result, it is worth taking a step back and asking why we value democracy so highly in this country.

Today, democracy is taken to be synonymous with liberty. Schoolchildren are taught that ex-Soviet bloc countries are now "free" because they have become democracies. Politicians justify military interventions by declaring their aim to "make the world safe for democracy." Democracy is seen as the ultimate value, the pinnacle of human political achievement. But when people say that democracy is freedom, they are severely mistaken.

The clearest example of the contradiction between democracy and freedom is the recent reaction to events in Austria. When a xenophobic and nationalist party led by Jörg Haider received an electoral victory that brought it into government, Western leaders were quick to denounce Austria. The EU slapped on economic sanctions, and the United States made it clear that the new Austrian government would not be tolerated. The Western love affair with democracy appeared to be suffering from second thoughts.

What that episode demonstrated was that there is a value higher than democracy: liberty. A Haider government would have restricted the rights of immigrants and instituted nationalist economic and cultural policies. It was apparent from Western reactions that freedom was more important than a democratic outcome.

But while admitting that freedom takes precedence over democracy with respect to Austria, politicians fail to apply the same standard to this country. Freedom is the value that government is instituted among men to protect, and democracy is meant to be but a procedure for establishing the composition of that government. Unfortunately, democracy has been elevated to a value by the unwitting.

Democracy should not be treated as a value in itself. All the things that we cherish as a civilization -- freedom of speech, freedom from persecution and arbitrary arrest, freedom to trade with one another and be secure in our property - are, as the phrases themselves show, freedom. The simple act of participating in elections should never be considered more important than the freedoms we enjoy.

If democracy were more important than freedom, we would have to accept that 55 percent of the population could vote to imprison the other 45 percent. Or if 60 percent could decide where I live and with whom I may be friends, that would have to be acceptable too. Clearly it is not, but that is precisely where an idolization of democracy takes us. If democracy is an ideal, then it must override all other considerations. Those who would treat democracy so would have no principled defense against fascism if it were brought in by the vote.

Unfortunately, democracy already trumps freedom. Regardless of the victors in today's elections, some of our rights will continue to be squelched. The choice between George W. Bush and Al Gore is simply that of one kind of statism, or one degree of statism, over another.

The doctrine of enumerated powers by which the Founding Fathers sought to prevent such statism has been rendered largely impotent. The system of checks and balances was a good idea, but its foundations were always insecure, as the founders themselves realized. It is the majority that elects both the legislative and executive bodies, and it is the elected legislature that appoints the judiciary. Ultimate power rests with the majority, and there is no further line of defense when it chooses to abuse that power.

A majority can at any time amend the Constitution. For example, the perennially proposed "flag burning amendment," if ever passed, would reverse in part the First Amendment. What's worse, the Constitution can simply be ignored. Although an amendment was required to prohibit the consumption of alcohol earlier this century, the modern drug war routinely violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments without repealing them. The Constitution no longer stands in the way of a majority.

Given a democracy that can undo checks put in place to balance it, a natural tendency exists for a tyranny of the majority to evolve that will limit freedom by using the coercive power of the state to achieve what it thinks is best for all governed, including the minority.

There is little hope for a revival of the doctrines of individual rights and enumerated powers as long as there is a majority - or as is apparently the case of the United States, an entire electorate - that refuses to accept or care about these principles. The fact that the two major candidates for President both espouse a considerable degree of state action that violates individual liberties and the Enumerated Powers Clause of the Constitution is a reflection of the low regard in which the electorate holds freedom.

Some people say that in a participatory democracy we must all be prepared to give up our freedoms if the will of the people demands it. But those who wish to keep their freedoms should not lose them just because others are prepared to do so themselves. The "will of the people" is a myth - there can only be a will of the majority.

For those who understand that liberty -- and not the will of the majority -- is the ultimate value, the situation is very frustrating. Democracy is not enough to protect freedom, but we have little other recourse. For all its flaws, it is still the best alternative to concentrated power.

So where does this leave you on Election Day? You can choose to cast a principled, if futile, vote for a candidate who also understands that individual rights trump government power - willed by the people or not. You can choose to vote for the "lesser of two evils," and at least minimize the amount of freedom you lose. Or you can choose not to vote - thereby not sanctioning the outcome of the election with your participation. Whatever you choose on Election Day, remember that while you might be voting for liberty, others around you are voting to take yours away. --30--

Paul Benjamin is an independent writer based in Washington, DC. Jerry Brito is creator and editor of Liberzine.com.